As the first day of Jian Ghomeshi's sex assault trial wrapped up, his defence lawyer Marie Henein had already pointed out several discrepancies in the first witness' testimony to police, media, and the court.

Overall, they were relatively minor: was she wearing hair extensions when he allegedly yanked her hair? In which direction was her hair being pulled? Was she kissing Ghomeshi before he allegedly pulled her hair or during? On Tuesday, she introduced a new question about whether or not the witness was "pushed," "pulled," or "thrown" to the ground during the assault in Ghomeshi's house—the answers appeared to vary in different interviews.

Then came the big reveal. Henein produced a series of bombshell emails that suggested the witness had made incorrect statements under oath when she claimed she cut off all communication with Ghomeshi after allegedly being punched in the head in his home.

Henein started out by establishing that the witness, whose identity is protected under publication ban, originally chose not to report Ghomeshi to police but instead "stay away" from him. She replayed a part of a recent police interview in which the woman said, "I didn't have any more dealings with him after that."

Henein outlined how "at least six times under oath" the witness told cops and the media that she didn't reach out to Ghomeshi after being allegedly assaulted in 2003, to the point where she turned off the TV and radio when he was on because it forced her to "relive the violence."

Then Henein paused, dramatically, asking, "Do you now want to tell his honour and the court the truth?" The witness responded that she had done so.

Henein presented the court with an email, dated January, 16, 2004, a year after the alleged assault took place. It was from the witness to Ghomeshi.

"Can I explain?" the witness interjected. But Henein carried on, going line by line through the email, which was sent at around 3 AM.

The subject read "Play>Boy" and opened with "Good to see you again!" followed by "Your show is still great."

The witness had included a link in the email to some kind of music video featuring herself and a friend. The email closed with, "If you want to keep in touch this is my email!!!!" and listed a phone number. (Ghomeshi never replied, according to the witness.)

"Are you prepared to admit you have lied under oath?" Henein asked the witness, to which she said, "I refuse."

The second email, sent in June 2004, opened with, "I've been watching you on 'Screw the Vote.'"

At this, the witness claimed that that was a lie and she'd never watched Ghomeshi on that show.

"I thought I'd drop you a line and say hello," it reads. "Hope all is well." Attached was a photo of the witness in a bikini.

The witness told the court she sent the emails to "bait" Ghomeshi.

"I wanted Jian to call me so I could ask him why did he violently punch me in the head," she said. "If reaching out to him like this was the only way to get it, that's the only way to get it."

The witness said she remembered drafting angry emails but couldn't remember sending them. Henein responded, "That is not an angry photo. It's a photo showing your entire body in a string bikini."

Regina v. Jian Ghomeshi begins on Feb. 1 at Toronto’s Old City Hall. We sought out some lawyers to provide insight and answers to some questions you may have about the much-anticipated trial.

What are the charges?
The former CBC radio host faces five charges: four counts of “sexual assault” and one count of “overcoming resistance by choking,” all alleged to have occurred in 2002 or 2003. (A sixth count of sexual assault dating to 2008 made will be tried in June.)

What is Ghomeshi looking at in terms of potential sentencing?
A guilty conviction for sexual assault that is tried summarily can result in incarceration in a provincial correctional centre for no more than 18 months. The charge of “overcoming resistance by choking” is seen by the courts to be as serious as attempted murder or aggravated sexual assault. It carries a potential penalty of “imprisonment for life” under the Canadian Criminal Code. Of course, that does not mean a life sentence is mandatory—or likely. Judges have complete discretion when handing down the sentence.

Who are the complainants?
Four women: three in the February trial, one in the trial set for June. Only one, the actress and Royal Canadian Air Force officer Lucy DeCoutere, has opted out of the publication ban standard in sexual violence cases. She has accused Ghomeshi of “sexual assault” and “overcoming resistance by choking.”

Why two trials?
Crown prosecutor Michael Callaghan has said the second trial was justified because that alleged sexual assault occurred in a “different factual context.” What that means is that the February trial will involve accusers who had social relationships with Ghomeshi; the June trial will deal with an alleged sexual assault in the CBC workplace.

How common is it to group complainants?
Very common, when you have multiple events and a single accused.

Jian Ghomeshi attends his pre-trial hearing at Old City Hall court in Toronto. The disgraced former CBC radio host plead not guilty to sex assault and choking charges. (Melissa Renwick/Toronto Star/Getty Images)

Does having multiple accusers benefit the Crown?
It can in practical ways, say lawyers. There’s the efficiency of multiple people alleging the same thing against the same person at the same time. “The defence will say it’s way too prejudicial to put all of these together—that 12 sh–ty cases will add up to one good one,” says one lawyer. “And the Crown will say we’re not running 12 cases.” Having multiple complainants on similar charges is also seen to reduce the risk of “inconsistent verdict” that could arise if each of the cases were tried separately.

Multiple accusers also can lead to what one lawyer calls “group think”—the “if 10,000 people say it, it must be true.” And that gives rise to concern that “the whole will be seen as greater than the sum of its parts”—or “where there’s smoke there might be fire.” “You want to avoid that creeping into justice system,” one lawyer says. “The justice system is big on ‘No, you’ve got to prove the fire.’ ”

Can multiple complainants also benefit the defence?
Yes: “It always creates an opportunity for the defence in making the case for a conspiracy between women,” one criminal lawyer says, which can be used to discredit witnesses. “It all turns on opportunity to collude. If you have actual communications you might have a collusion case.”

Why will it be decided by a judge, not a jury?
A judge alone is the norm in criminal cases. The Crown proceeds summarily in many sexual assault cases, which means a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice rather than the Superior Court,” one defence lawyer explains: “I don’t criticize that. It means a complainant doesn’t have to testify at a preliminary hearing and a trial. The penalties are lower but it’s worth the trade-off.”

Who’s the judge?
Ontario Court Justice William Horkins. The former Crown attorney was a criminal defence lawyer before being appointed to the bench. “He’s very smart, doesn’t suffer fools and is known as a tougher judge,” says one lawyer. Another notes that his presence is viewed as better news for the prosecution than the defence: “A lot of judges have a much wider strike zone of ‘reasonable doubt’ than him.”

Who’s representing Ghomeshi?
Marie Henein with Danielle Robitaille, both of Henein Hutchinson LLP. Henein, a superstar in legal circles, is known for her ruthless, old-school courtroom style and dramatic flair, legally and sartorially. She was part of the team led by Eddie Greenspan that successfully defended former Nova Scotia premier and ex-federal cabinet minister Gerald Regan in 1993; Regan was acquitted on eight counts, including rape, attempted rape, indecent assault and unlawful confinement. She also successfully defended former junior hockey coach David Frost who was acquitted of sexually exploiting his players in 2008. Henein is renowned for eviscerating witnesses on cross-examination. In his 2012 book, 28 Seconds, Henein’s former client, Michael Bryant, wrote that she “seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter” when questioning witnesses, “so able was she to find a person’s deepest frailties and exploit them.” Henein succeeded in getting all charges dropped against the former attorney-general of Ontario, including criminal negligence causing death, after bike courier Darcy Allan Sheppard died.

Who’s representing the Crown?
Michael Callaghan, with Corie Langdon. Callaghan, a career Crown, is a very different courtroom personality from Henein, says one defence lawyer. “He’s a low-key guy, methodical, a hard worker, very smart. He’s competent, he’s not a superstar, he’ll do a good job.” “Fair” and “honest” are words used to describe him. He’s respected, one lawyer says: “You’ll have a hard time finding anyone who would say anything bad about him.”

Will Ghomeshi testify?
Opinion differs. Several lawyers believe he’ll have to. “He’s going to testify absolutely,” says one. Another agrees, saying: “You have a number of complainants saying they were sexually assaulted. Without him giving his version it would be very difficult to secure an acquittal.” One lawyer differs: “I don’t think we’re going to see Ghomeshi testify. I think Marie’s ‘Plan A’ will be to totally discredit the [alleged] victims. There’s no question she’s spent hours with him in witness prep to prepare him but will avoid it if she can.”

Will the tape shown to CBC executives that got Ghomeshi fired surface as evidence?
No. That tape, which CBC executives claimed provided “graphic evidence” that Ghomeshi “physically injured” a woman involved an incident occurring after 2012. No charges have been laid related to the activities on the tape.

Could the post that Ghomeshi put up on Facebook come back to haunt him?
Possibly. In that Oct. 2014 post—which claimed the CBC had fired him on the grounds of his personal sexual habits—Ghomeshi insisted, “I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.” These activities included “rough sex (forms of BDSM)” with one girlfriend, he wrote. “It’s fodder for the Crown,” says one lawyer. “It would be so useful in cross examining Ghomeshi.” That’s if he testifies.

How long is the trial expected to take?
It’s estimated to run two to three weeks.

What’s the pre-trial buzz among lawyers?
“It’s going to be a great performance from Marie, great courtroom drama,” says one. There’s agreement that Henein, known for constructing compelling defence narratives, will likely zone in on communication between the complainants to build reasonable doubt based on collusion or conspiracy. There’s also chatter about implications of a judge who’s not “defence-friendly.” That said, sexual assault cases between acquaintances are notoriously difficult to prove in court given the “beyond a reasonable doubt.” More than one lawyer said they wouldn’t be surprised to see acquittal on all counts.

Clarification: This post has been updated to indicate that the maximum sentence for a sexual assault charge dealt with summarily is 18 months; as an indictable offence, a 10-year maximum sentence applies. ​

In a talk he gave to an enraptured crowd in Stratford, Ont., last July, Jian Ghomeshi revealed that he had a teddy bear named Big Ears. He said the bear helped him deal with his general anxiety disorder, which has plagued him for years. His therapist suggested that he get the bear because his favourite toy as a kid was a teddy bear with the same name. “Big Ears has played a really important role in my life,” he confessed.

This charming anecdote was recounted in the local paper, the Beacon Herald, which covered the speech. The reporter described Mr. Ghomeshi’s talk as “both engaging and frequently hilarious.”

Big Ears Teddy has been featuring prominently in other Jian Ghomeshi news this week. Two of his accusers say he invited her to his house and proceeded to assault her. Each alleges that before he began, Mr. Ghomeshi turned the bear to the wall and said, “Big Ears Teddy shouldn’t see this.”

It’s hard to find the words for this. For now, “beyond creepy” will have to do.

It may be that the detailed, mounting abuse allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi – including the calm, cool recollection of actor Lucy DeCoutere – are all cooked up. Or it may be that there’s something to them. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. But in the court of public opinion, Mr. Ghomeshi has gone in a few news cycles from hero to tainted to universally reviled. He cannot recover. People who prematurely tweeted in his defence (Judy Rebick, Elizabeth May and Sheila Copps, among others) have been left scrambling to explain themselves. The CBC, at first accused of bureaucratic cowardice, is now being accused of harbouring a serial batterer who allegedly hit on his own staff.

Alleged my ass. This is like the Cosby sitch. If one person is claiming something, maybe it's debatable. If a dozen or more are all saying you're a psycho who chokes and punches women who aren't looking for that, I believe them. I've also got a ton of friends in the Canadian entertainment industry, and they range between people who like him but don't want to talk about it, and people who are saying "Fuck it. We all knew all along that this is what he was like. It's time to call him out and support his victims."

I'm following the trial really closely, and it's infuriating. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He's paying his defense team MILLIONS, and all they have to do is poke some holes in the victims' credibility / recollection of some details 12+ years ago, and he'll walk. I hate our justice system that allows a grinning shithead to buy his way through this while the women he punched out have to have all their personal business trotted out publicly just to watch him get acquitted. Imagine that was your sister or friend or daughter up there, and she can't get any justice. It's gross. I'd love to disembowel the fucker with a hot poker.

The defense is trying to suggest that if this first woman on the stand continued to see him and contact him that the abuse wasn't really assault, because she must have liked it / been complicit. There are women all over the place who date, marry and go on honeymoon with men who are beating the shit out of them. Doesn't make it right. His lawyer is a first-rate cunt, and I hope she burns in hell.

Alleged my ass. This is like the Cosby sitch. If one person is claiming something, maybe it's debatable. If a dozen or more are all saying you're a psycho who chokes and punches women who aren't looking for that, I believe them. I've also got a ton of friends in the Canadian entertainment industry, and they range between people who like him but don't want to talk about it, and people who are saying "Fuck it. We all knew all along that this is what he was like. It's time to call him out and support his victims."

I'm following the trial really closely, and it's infuriating. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He's paying his defense team MILLIONS, and all they have to do is poke some holes in the victims' credibility / recollection of some details 12+ years ago, and he'll walk. I hate our justice system that allows a grinning shithead to buy his way through this while the women he punched out have to have all their personal business trotted out publicly just to watch him get acquitted. Imagine that was your sister or friend or daughter up there, and she can't get any justice. It's gross. I'd love to disembowel the fucker with a hot poker.

The defense is trying to suggest that if this first woman on the stand continued to see him and contact him that the abuse wasn't really assault, because she must have liked it / been complicit. There are women all over the place who date, marry and go on honeymoon with men who are beating the shit out of them. Doesn't make it right. His lawyer is a first-rate cunt, and I hope she burns in hell.

Click to expand...

I totally think all the allegations are true. It's really interesting to see all the people that willing turned a blind eye to his behaviour for whatever reason. I mean a guy has a reputation as a women beater and rapist yet is plastered all over CBC. Baffling. The witness fucked up though. She has lost credibility in the court now, possibly perjuring herself. That being said I believe there are 2 or 3 more accusers testifying in court. I know his lawyers are good but he's def gonna get convicted somehow. One interesting aspect of this case is it is trial by judge, not by jury.

I totally think all the allegations are true. It's really interesting to see all the people that willing turned a blind eye to his behaviour for whatever reason. I mean a guy has a reputation as a women beater and rapist yet is plastered all over CBC. Baffling. The witness fucked up though. She has lost credibility in the court now, possibly perjuring herself. That being said I believe there are 2 or 3 more accusers testifying in court. I know his lawyers are good but he's def gonna get convicted somehow. One interesting aspect of this case is it is trial by judge, not by jury.

Alleged my ass. This is like the Cosby sitch. If one person is claiming something, maybe it's debatable. If a dozen or more are all saying you're a psycho who chokes and punches women who aren't looking for that, I believe them. I've also got a ton of friends in the Canadian entertainment industry, and they range between people who like him but don't want to talk about it, and people who are saying "Fuck it. We all knew all along that this is what he was like. It's time to call him out and support his victims."

I'm following the trial really closely, and it's infuriating. He doesn't have to prove his innocence. He's paying his defense team MILLIONS, and all they have to do is poke some holes in the victims' credibility / recollection of some details 12+ years ago, and he'll walk. I hate our justice system that allows a grinning shithead to buy his way through this while the women he punched out have to have all their personal business trotted out publicly just to watch him get acquitted. Imagine that was your sister or friend or daughter up there, and she can't get any justice. It's gross. I'd love to disembowel the fucker with a hot poker.

The defense is trying to suggest that if this first woman on the stand continued to see him and contact him that the abuse wasn't really assault, because she must have liked it / been complicit. There are women all over the place who date, marry and go on honeymoon with men who are beating the shit out of them. Doesn't make it right. His lawyer is a first-rate cunt, and I hope she burns in hell.

Click to expand...

If I ever need a criminal defence lawyer here she's the one I would hire